 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
Finaly saw most of that (gulp) "movie". No, didn't pay for it, and would not. Forced myself to watch to the end. Really should not have, because as bad as the whole movie was, the ending is thousand times worse. Feel like eat some shit.Bad actors, wooden acting, ridiculous situations, total lack of realism (all those super-accurate shots belong into Steven Seagal stupid action flicks), too much red paint, too little creativity, stupid GI personnal stories and the ending, oh, that idiotic ending!
Spielberg knows how to speculate on what is dear and important. He calls himself a "director". Cut me a major break. Bergman was a director. Kubrick was. Allen is. Spielberg is to directing what Big Mac is to fine French cuisine.
As bad as that movie is, its impression was made even worse by watching Bergman's The Passions of Anna prior to it.
What is next from that Butcher of Beverly Hills?
Victor.
As stated before, you have the right to like or dislike any movie, however I am willing to bet that you have no true idea of what it was like to be in combat or more importantly on the beach that day. I know two men that were there. Neither one of them ever, and I mean ever talks about it. From what I have read the battle scenes are very realistic. Do you find the personal and group heroism in this movie unbelievable? Do you find yourself thinking that you would never risk yourself for anyone or anything as the charactors in the movie did? If you do, you are not alone. The reason this movie was made was to show younger generations just what those brave men did, individually and collectively. All of us need to understand the sacrifices made on our behalf, and the price we must pay if/when our leaders choose to go to war. I sincerely doubt that we as a nation could ever accomplish such a task again. I am not comforted by this thought.
that some day, people will learn the hard work of thinking for themselves, and acting in their own selfish interests--like voting responsibly, participating in local goverment, and seeing that the "enemy" gets a fair deal (think globally, act locally). It's the economic/power-hording interests that stir-up the war hate. Those sacrifices weren't made on our behalf- they were made for Standard Oil, International Banking, Guns-R-US, etal. I'd be willing to give my life for my fellow man--by not fighting. I hope the kind of thinking that makes nobel sacrifices out of the horrors that men did to one another dies out, but Spielberg keeps it going, and going, and going... They won't talk about it because they know to let it die. What a price to pay for enlightenment. Spielburg is making money off the war and keeping alive the idea that it's about "Ideals".I'd like to see him make a documentary about the Iraqui peasants standing in the trenches with their empty hands raised high over their heads, Allah Akbar, as the M1 tanks with lights so bright retinas were instantly seared, pushed 20-foot berms of choking sand--a wave moving 30-miles and hour on both sides of the trenches nobody could escape from, burying alive tens of thousands of startled men and boys who thought they were saved from the Republican Guard's minefields all around them. I'd like to see him do the special effects of a B-52 saturation bombing from 40,000 feet, so high the starving people below never heard them, never saw them, never knew how close the American Death Machine was, how long the reach, how terrible the justice, the percussion wave so powerful that bodies are split in half even thousands of yards away, and those further out have their eyeballs blown right out of their heads and their brains pushing through their eardurms, still alive, still conscious, dying slowly for a man they hate more that we do, forced away from their homes and families at gunpoint. I'd like to see him show the faces of the A-10 pilots who caught the fleeing men running for their lives out into the desert night, caught them in their night vision goggles and vaoprized them with the depleated uranium anti-tank shells. God fearing men, one and all. They're defending George Bush's way of life. A thousand points of light, piercing bodies all through the night.
We can defeat our enemies by building Kmarts on every corner in every town and village. Selling them Coke and Burgers and leaf-blowers. That's why they hate us. They hate our Baywatch, they hate our Beanie Babies, they hate our Christmas. Hollywood and television is everything they hate about us. "We have met the enemy, and he is us."
I am not comforted by this thought:
That war is Catch 22.
(hey DaveH, I hope you forgive my ranting--I can't help it sometimes)
petew;
If you are looking for an argument that the Gulf War wasn't about oil, I can't help you. It was, and I trust most are aware of this. I probably criticize American culture and societal norms more then most, but I still believe that it remains one of the best. There are certainly more enlightened societies; Iceland, Greenland, the Scandanavian countries, etc. -- yet there are many worse. Many societies were women and chilren are property, if not slaves. Societies were there are no opportunities for education or self-fulfillment unless born into a certain privileged class. Places where even a pseudo-democracy is forbidden. America remains a place of opportunity and promise. We give more money to charity per person, per capita, and per GDP then any other country. I'm not just talking about the government or charitable organizations, I'm talking about us, normal everyday people. The western jedeo-christian (sp?) ethic of giving of oneself remains as part of our cultural foundation. Even when it means giving one's life for what one believes. I accept that this was one of the things that Spielberg was trying to communicate. I think he did that rather well.I wish all evils could be conquered by non-violent means. I wish soldiers read Gandhi and not Patton. I wish there were no soldiers. There are bullies out there, they don't listen to reason and they don't want to be enlightened. They just want what they want and will kill and destroy to take it. I am grateful that I remain an English speaking American and not a Japanese-German speaking citizen of the 'axis powers'. Aren't you?
***If you are looking for an argument that the Gulf War wasn't about oil, I can't help you. It was, and I trust most are aware of this.I agree the case can be made for this (not that I would agree 100%). However, I shall take a war for oil's sake any day over the one to save our President's sorry ass.
Victor.
***As stated before, you have the right to like or dislike any movie, however I am willing to bet that you have no true idea of what it was like to be in combat or more importantly on the beach that day.I certainly have not participated in any action, if that is what you are saying. At the same time, there is such thing as education and many of do know about ancient Grece without actually having been being there. Yes, you listen to all who were there, you read, you watch *good* movies and you form your opinion.
Also, I would be the last one to ridicule or even imply any disrespect for the great things that our father did for all of us - either from the Western part or the Russian. I don't think we should even bring this into discussion. We are not talking about sacrifices, we are not talking about history, we are talking about one lousy movie. Let's discuss the movie.
***I know two men that were there.Many of us do. For instance, both of my parents were in the Army defending Leningrad during its 900 day siege where 1 million died. My father-in-law went through the German concentration camp, escaped, joined the Partisans and then the Red Army, finishing the war wounded in Berlin. Yes, I too have some points of reference and I DO take them *very* seriously.
***Neither one of them ever, and I mean ever talks about it. From what I have read the battle scenes are very realistic. Do you find the personal and group heroism in this movie unbelievable?
??? Please see above. No, not me.
***Do you find yourself thinking that you would never risk yourself for anyone or anything as the charactors in the movie did???? That has nothing to do with discussion of movie. Movie is art form (or is supposed to be). We were discussing the particular artwork, not what it stands for. The subject and means of art are often intertwined, but they are never the same. Many people confuse the two, though.
***If you do, you are not alone.???
***The reason this movie was made was to show younger generations just what those brave men did, individually and collectively. All of us need to understand the sacrifices made on our behalf, and the price we must pay if/when our leaders choose to go to war. I sincerely doubt that we as a nation could ever accomplish such a task again. I am not comforted by this thought
When talking about educating the young, we must stay away from cheap Hollywood presentation that does more harm than good to anyone.
When I watch the Rambo or the Commando movies I see the hero killing ten enemies with a single bullet with bodies fly ten feet in the air. I know it is fake and unreal and at the same time I hear the teenagers laugh and cheer. It is sort of OK, it is garbage any way you look at it.
Now, I see almost the same stuff in that "serious, educational, real" Private Ryan. I see ten Germans killed with the same bullet, their bodies fly ten feet in the air. I see the barrage of German bullets not hitting any GI's at close range (where did they learn to shoot like that, those lousy German soldierss with their MP-40's not able to hit a man from 20 feet?). I see the US sniper hitting a 1" target from 450 meters - a bullshit better reserved for the Sniper flick, it is so laughable. I see poor actor Tom destroy three Germans armed with MP-40's and not getting a scratch. Yep, all that stuff is so real that I feel ashamed.
Yes, I too hope that that movie does at least some good to the young. Will it? I don't know. But it will most certainly not go down into the annals as a *good* movie. Rest assured that twenty years from now people will be talking about Fellini and Bergman, but not Spielberg. He is just one mandane artisan of rather opportunistic nature. Yes, and the close friend of our beloved Mr. Clinton.
Victor.
You compare Speilberg with Kubrik et al and state that he is not a director like them or perhaps should not be considered a director at all. Perhaps I agree with you. Speilberg will never be considered a great director of "art films" yet he will be remembered as a great movie maker and more importantly as a great "story teller." This is, after all, what he does, and in my humble opinion better then most. He enchants his audience with stories. Just because his movies are not filled with Faustian angst doesn't mean that they are vile crap. His movies tell stories; stories of wonder and enchantment, stories of adventure, stories of good and evil. Narrative films such as Hook, Indiana Jones, and Schlindler's List will never be compared to La Dolce Vita or Citizen Kane, however, they will be brought up in comparisons between Speilburg and other great story tellers who used film as their medium.Saving Private Ryan was about the men of our father's generation and their reality. Service to others, self sacrifice, patriotism; these were more then words to that generation, they were simple but absolute truths which they activily embodied. I thought that was what Speilberg accomplished, to show these simple yet fundamental concepts in a modest story that took place in a very complicated time and under the circumstances of war. Did he get carried away with making his first war movie? Perhaps, but not overmuch. Saving Private Ryan is a movie about the heroism of war and the good citizenship of peacetime that such heorism demands. It is a story about patriotism and patriots. A subject deserving attention and a story, perhaps a bit simplistically, but in the end well told.
***You compare Speilberg with Kubrik et al and state that he is not a director like them or perhaps should not be considered a director at all. Perhaps I agree with you. Speilberg will never be considered a great director of "art films" yet he will be remembered as a great movie maker and more importantly as a great "story teller." This is, after all, what he does, and in my humble opinion better then most. He enchants his audience with stories. Just because his movies are not filled with Faustian angst doesn't mean that they are vile crap. His movies tell stories; stories of wonder and enchantment, stories of adventure, stories of good and evil. Narrative films such as Hook, Indiana Jones, and Schlindler's List will never be compared to La Dolce Vita or Citizen Kane, however, they will be brought up in comparisons between Speilburg and other great story tellers who used film as their medium.
I don't have problem with that. However, I do start getting a problem when such "hot dog" (to borrow Steve's expression) movie is being loudly trumpeted as the best movie of the year and it becomes a larger than life celebration cause. Mind you, even in the US, where movie making is almost totally dominated by garbage production, there is Allen, to name just one.I don't mean to beat this to death, but my problem with Spielberg's style is the cheap methods he uses, stuff one normally associates with the Friday the 13th. There ARE better ways of telling a story. One doesn't have to reserve to "Faustian angst".
***Saving Private Ryan was about the men of our father's generation and their reality. Service to others, self sacrifice, patriotism; these were more then words to that generation, they were simple but absolute truths which they activily embodied. I thought that was what Speilberg accomplished, to show these simple yet fundamental concepts in a modest story that took place in a very complicated time and under the circumstances of war. Did he get carried away with making his first war movie? Perhaps, but not overmuch. Saving Private Ryan is a movie about the heroism of war and the good citizenship of peacetime that such heorism demands. It is a story about patriotism and patriots. A subject deserving attention and a story, perhaps a bit simplistically, but in the end well told.
You are probably right and in final analysis that movie is perhaps going to have some positive impact. I hope it does.
Regards,
Victor.
While you have a right to like or dislike a movie, I must disagree that it was all unrealistic. I went to the theatre with a WWII vet and he thought the Normandy landing was right on, including the bullets whizzing past. The dead bodies, men getting killed all around you, etc. The rest you can take or leave. I suggest you find a vet and ask them what it was like, I think you will find that Private Ryan underplayed the horror.
***While you have a right to like or dislike a movie, I must disagree that it was all unrealistic.This is not what I said. Realism can be understood differently. If I show close up shots on guts and knife going through it then some will say "that is very realistic" and to some degree they will be right. I don't see it that way, however. To me that is just cheap manipulative approach that adds nothing to the art of movie making. We are talking about form of art here, aren't we?
My biggest problem with that "movie" is that it is not what it pretends to be - an honest portrayal of reality. It uses too cheap and tired teenager-type tools in order to achieve its effects. It is irritating and boring. And don't even mention that obsene ending scene.
***I went to the theatre with a WWII vet and he thought the Normandy landing was right on, including the bullets whizzing past. The dead bodies,
We are obviously looking for different things in that delicate media called "movies". I don't need many dead body mock-ups to get the feel of horror. I don't need gallons and barrels of red paint. I don't nesessarily need 140dB sound level. To me all that stuff cheapens the movie. There ARE more subtle and actually more effective tools.
***men getting killed all around you, etc.Men get killed all around you in the Friday the 13th.
I do, however, expect at least some artistic capabilities on part of someone claiming to be a "director". Spielberg has demonstrated very little in that regard.
***The rest you can take or leave.
That "the rest" is called movie. There is supposed to be something left after you remove the cheap effects. In case of Private Ryan there is very little, unfortunately. But sure, I CAN leave that movie.
***I suggest you find a vet and ask them what it was like, I think you will find that Private Ryan underplayed the horror.
You seem to be fixated on that horror element. I have already stated that I do not get impresed by red paint and display of artificial guts. I HAVE seen and experienced much more powerful tools and shall never forget that effect. For example, the three men dancing in Salo made me shiver with horror. Private Ryan? Ho-hum. Mediocre pretender.
Regards,
Victor.
Victor, the point I was trying to make was that the landing sequences had a "you are there" feel, so your statements that they are "fake" are off. Of course they are fake, that is why it is called a movie. You find such "vivid" protrays of violence disgusting, I agree, they are. But it did happen. There are a lot of people who say it was "not that bad" because they cannot believe that such things happen. I am not fixated on it, as you suggest. Rather it sounds like you think that others are not getting your point.As the other writers state, Speilberg makes (sometimes) decent hotdogs. Like most mainstream Hollywood directors, his idea of "art" is to use a sledgehammer rather than explosives. Hitchcock did more in movies by "suggesting" than Speilberg ever will by showing. So I agree there are more subtle tools, but not everyone gets subtle.
My favorite movie scene is in the Great Dictator where Chaplin uses the globe as a beach ball, until it bursts. Funny on the surface, but forboding underneath.
Sometimes I want to eat haute cuisine and sometimes all I want is a really good burger or hot dog. Spielberg occasionally makes very good hot dogs. I agree that the basic plot device used in "Ryan" was artificial and manipulative, and I think other directors would not have given Hanks the "why we are here" sermon or made him stop his troops from killing their German prisoner. But I found the Omaha beach sequence very effective at grabbing the viewer's attention. I think Spielberg also demands that his movies hammer home the point to the audience that this is what it takes to be the "good guys" (also in "Schindler's list"). He is not going to let the audience think about or question their morality (unlike Kurosawa, Stone, Pasolini, etc.).BTW, when I wrote that "Salo" was the most repulsive movie I had ever seen, I did not mean to imply that it was a bad movie (actually was hoping that my comment would lead others to seek it out), but that it was going to make the viewer extremely uncomfortable and make one question why viewing this horror holds a strange attraction/fascination. One thing is for sure, viewing "Salo" will affect and change you.
Speaking of uncomfortable, for those who haven't seen "Salo" yet, recall the scene in Schindler's list when the gun keeps jamming, preventing an execution. Multiply that by a dozen or so and that is what viewing "Salo" is like.
***Sometimes I want to eat haute cuisine and sometimes all I want is a really good burger or hot dog. Spielberg occasionally makes very good hot dogs.Yes, he is a very *professional* hot dog maker. The level of his crew's technical skills is tremendous.
I agree that the basic plot device used in "Ryan" was artificial and manipulative, and I think other directors would not have given Hanks the "why we are here" sermon or made him stop his troops from killing their German prisoner. But I found the Omaha beach sequence very effective at grabbing the viewer's attention. I think Spielberg also demands that his movies hammer home the point to the audience that this is what it takes to be the "good guys" (also in "Schindler's list"). He is not going to let the audience think about or question their morality (unlike Kurosawa, Stone, Pasolini, etc.).
That is a good point. However, I typically find that most US movie makers don't want the viewer to make that decision regarding the morality. They believe that the viewers must be told what's good or they shall deviate. Therefore you see the prolifiration of idiotic "summary" scenes, like the one at the Ryan's end (sorry, the other end).
Every onece in a while you want to see something that lets you think, not just cheer.
***BTW, when I wrote that "Salo" was the most repulsive movie I had ever seen, I did not mean to imply that it was a bad movie (actually was hoping that my comment would lead others to seek it out), but that it was going to make the viewer extremely uncomfortable and make one question why viewing this horror holds a strange attraction/fascination.
That was fairly clear, I thought.
***One thing is for sure, viewing "Salo" will affect and change you.
That is true too. I do find it hard to admit that I actually love that movie. Most folks would probably consider me a deviant for saying this. I also uderstand that it was specifically created to shock by someone with absolutely tremendous skills. And it works.
Regards,
Victor.
I rented this because Gene Siscal recommended it. But I'd forgotten he warned me there's a scene in there that's particularly shocking, especially to those who have small children. The film wasn't about what I thought it was about. I used to do trainspotting as a young lad living in a poor industrial part of England in the early Sixties. It wasn't about that. Great film, but I curse the director for doing that scene to me. It's part of me now. I can't forget it, I can't go back. I'm not used to real film. I was raised on hamburgers and hotdogs. You've made me curious about Salo, but I can't handle it. It's Adam's choice. I love my innocence, but curious about the taste of the apple.
Steve,Based on your advice, I went and rented the Glenn Gould movie. I am sorry to report that it irritated me from the first minute - the fake importance of him walking half mile over the snow. I didn't like that self promotion with a bit of music thrown in. I would never expect anybody trully great (say, Horowitz?) to make movie about HIMSELF.
We turned it OFF after about 20 minutes. Glenn Gould meets Glenn Gould was way too much for our senses. His attempt at philosophy was just too shallow. The character too small.
On a more positive note: the Bitter Harvest is quite interesting. Have you seen it?
Victor.
As you probably know Glenn Gould lived in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. My sister worked near where he lived and she would walk past him on the street. She described him as a short man who ALWAYS wore gloves, even in summer and mumbled to himself.
Sorry it was a big disappointment to you. BTW, Gould died in October of 1982 of a stroke. Colm Feore (recently seen in the Stephen King miniseries "Storm of the Century) played Gould in the film. If you hated this one, you'll probably also hate "The Red Violin" (same director: Francois Girard). Haven't seen "Bitter Harvest" so I'll have to check it out.
***Sorry it was a big disappointment to you. BTW, Gould died in October of 1982 of a stroke. Colm Feore (recently seen in the Stephen King miniseries "Storm of the Century) played Gould in the filmBummer. How do you say "caught with your pants down" in Russian?... Should have paid more attention. I just presumed and what do you know, presumptions are dangerous. You know, long day, tired, wife brings seven movies, put the first one on - it sucks, turn it off after twenty minutes, put the second one on - it sucks too, not kidding you, twenty more minutes, put Gould on, already bitter and tired. Cursed and went to bed. Next day - the Bitter Harvest. Recommended.
As far as the best movie not to take your mother-in-law to - In the Realm of Senses. We should have known better. About 18 years ago we took her, fresh from the stale Soviet culture, to the movies. The little Japanese gem. The rest you can guess. Glad we went home and not to the hospital.
Victor.
I guess a hardcore "Lorena Bobbitt prequel" movie would be okay for my mother-in-law...if she happened to be Madonna!As for mistaking Colm Feore for a dead guy, perfectly understandable. We in the U.S.A. need to hire forensic specialists to determine if our Vice-President is still alive.
I may have to check out the Andrei Rublev DVD, as the version I saw in the theater was about 35 min. shorter.
My favorite part was that egg manipulation sequence... BTW, I saw that DVD on sale at the Best Buy. I even suggested buying it to my wife. She didn't take long to respond.As much as I don't accept their way of life, I admire the Japanese culture. Slow (not rushing) and introspective. Have you seen the Spirit of Tattoo and Woman in Dunes?
Regarding Gore - there was a very popular song in the USSR - "Lenin shall always be alive..." That seventy years after his ideas and most of his lower body have rotten away (upparently there is just part of the upper torso under the blanket).
If you get that Rublev DVD - let me know about its quality. I actually have not watched any DVD's in a while - with my full-blown (and pretty good) home theater set-up we spend most of the time watching the VHS tapes.
Have you seen his first work - The Ivan's Childhood (my translation)? Already gives you the flavor that someone major is coming.
Victor.
I've got "Irezumi: Spirit of the Tattoo" on laserdisc. Saw "Woman In The Dunes" in a theater, a good lesson for entomology students. I'm trying to find a decent version of "Chushingura" (Inagaki's version sort of sucked; I've been told that Mizoguchi and Ichikawa have done better with the 47 Ronin story). What's your favorite Kurosawa film? I guess mine is "Ikiru" based on the way it examines the human condition and vindicates living life well. On the other hand, I could go for "Rashomon" with its lesson in nonobjectivity.I didn't see "Ivan's Childhood", so this is another I'll put on my list.
If you think Japanese cinema is slow, quiet, and introspective, you ought to try "The Scent of Green Papaya" (Vietnamese) and "Why Has Bodhi Dharma Left To The East?" (Korean). The last one is probably the ultimate Zen movie; I'm Buddhist and even I was falling asleep during that one.
***I've got "Irezumi: Spirit of the Tattoo" on laserdisc.That is one stylish movie.
***Saw "Woman In The Dunes" in a theater, a good lesson for entomology students. I'm trying to find a decent version of "Chushingura" (Inagaki's version sort of sucked;
I am not faliliar with that one. Need to look it up in the guide.
***I've been told that Mizoguchi and Ichikawa have done better with the 47 Ronin story). What's your favorite Kurosawa film? I guess mine is "Ikiru" based on the way it examines the human condition and vindicates living life well.My experience with Ikiru was pitiful. It was a double-feature, late hight and movie too long and too slow. We left after about 90 minutes. Who knows, maybe under different curcumstances?
Generally, double-features can be too much. I recall once a local theater showed the 2001 side by side with the Solaris. It felt like a full one day tripper and I think most of the Solaris' beauty was lost to the tired audience. I always loved Banionis (the lead in the Solaris) and I remember that before the movie release there was a tremedous inticipation - reminds me of the Kubrick's releases. The intelligencia in major Russian cities has always been extremely art-sensitive and that is one part of the Russian life that I probably miss the most.
***On the other hand, I could go for "Rashomon" with its lesson in nonobjectivityI don't know which is one I like the most, but the Dreams is up there for sure, together with the Kagemusha. But this is the probem with great directors - you tend to like most of their creations. I recently again emjoyed the Ran on a large screen, too bad the transfer was too fuzzy.
***I didn't see "Ivan's Childhood", so this is another I'll put on my list
It is too bad that the Russian movies are not better known here. Over the decades they have produced a tremendous number of masterpieces. In the recent years, together with a murky wave of pale Hollywood immitations, there were many good ones too. There are stores out there where one can rent all the latest releases (most with totally atrocious quality as a rule - what smart Russian businessman would buy the oficial copies?), unfortunately none is usually translated. In terms of their overall level the better Russian production might be right there with the Italian movies, which I usually put above all others.
***If you think Japanese cinema is slow, quiet, and introspective, you ought to try "The Scent of Green Papaya" (Vietnamese) and "Why Has Bodhi Dharma Left To The East?" (Korean). The last one is probably the ultimate Zen movie; I'm Buddhist and even I was falling asleep during that one
That probably wouldn't be my cup of tea. Although I have a friend who is very much into slow deliberate tortures (he's been to several Wagner's Ring full-length cycles) and I will mentioned those to him.
Have a nice day,
Victor.
Yep, you got it. Unless one was there, or in Nam, you have no idea of what real combat is. Unless you see all the horrors on both sides, you only get a feel from hollywoods interpretations, unrealistic.Thanks for your input.
The one positive about this movie was the sound in DD. As for the rest of the movie I tend to agree with you.MiKe
***The one positive about this movie was the sound in DD.I infortunately saw it on a 27" Sony with its puny single speaker. However, I can imagine that the sound was spectacular. You have to give that to the Hollywood movie makers - they have level of professional skills that is simply superb. Technically their products are first rate - picture quality, sound, editing. It is just they are simily artisans, not artists.
Also, I never have any problems with a professionally wrapped piece of shit - as long as it is understoof that it is piece of shit. What Spielberg does, however, is pushing his trash under the pretense of "wholesome FDA approved organically grown cucumbers".
Victor.
even though I live less than a mile from one of those 24 tv-screen "movie houses" I can't seem to stay awake past 9 pm, after the kids go to bed. So my movie time is rare and valuable. Thanks for that save. Spewburg hasn't even been recognized by the Acadamy, has he? Don't they give an oscar for "Most Money Made Without Socially Redeeming Value" ?
TITANIC!!After, the 1st hour you're compelled, even obligated to root for the iceberg!!!
And curse the survivors, for telling this tripe of a fairy tail.
that's good, rooting for the iceberg...
Your right on the money with that one. lol
MiKe
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
